Published by Markets For Good (now Digital Impact) Sep 29, 2014
As a classification system, Big Data is predictive, not intuitive. A system based on stats alone can’t possibly invest in the people it can’t see.
As public-private relations evolve and data sharing initiatives proliferate, philanthropy should remain vigilant about the perils of sharing too much too fast, remembering our sacred bond with civil society. As the coming wave of urban growth transforms the way we live and interact, sound ethics in big data will be an even bigger priority, underscoring the value of philanthropy as a bridge between civil society and private innovation.
When the fictional character Harvey Dent, district attorney of Batman’s Gotham City says, “you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain,” he refers to absolute power and the corruption of virtue. Later the fictional character falls prey to the schism between his inherent goodness and the more unsavory side of his humanity—a once idealistic public servant now obsessed with absolutes. Today we see a similar dynamic in data and the big data movement.
Big Data represents a paradigm shift in how we structure and move information and ourselves; as it becomes more pervasive in society it will increasingly define our collective and individual identities. Data will allow us to be more productive and cooperative, to make our cities more connected and resilient; our future depends on the data we produce today. But as Darin McKeever at Gates Foundation says, “data is not evidence.”
Data may soon be an asset the likes of which the social sector has never seen. But data is wild, some say wicked. Giving more data won’t make us wiser and sacrificing more for data’s sake won’t make us safer. Just take apps. Developers who overlook the social forces that inspire them may not consider the implications for society once their creations adapt and mature. Apps meant to for safety and convenience in cities may actually encourage social bias. Author Janus Kopfstein says this could result in “an increasing number of systems that impose values of their own rather than embrace the ethical standards that society at large tends to recognize.”
This assumes an ethical disconnect, which makes the social sector an asset to the Big Data enterprise. As a bridge between civil society, policy, and private innovation, the social sector not only brings a deep understanding of community, but also a heightened ethical awareness—one necessary to avoid what Lucy Bernholz calls “policy train wrecks between new technological possibilities and established forms of governance, privacy, and security.” (See “Preparing For The World We’re Trying To Bring About” for more from Lucy on this.)
The future of civil society depends on the architecture we build for data. By 2050 two thirds of the global population will live in cities. This mass migration will put an unprecedented amount of stress on already fragile urban infrastructures, especially in developing countries where the brunt of this migration will occur. Data will play a central role in making our cities more resilient over time as we transition into this new urban era. Private and public sectors will become increasingly intertwined as innovations in health care, public transportation, mixed-income housing and other initiatives expand and improve.
Private entities are already making their data available to the public through the UN GlobalPulse data philanthropy initiative. Robert Kirkpatrick echoes the popular notion that only private expertise can guide the public sector’s handling of Big Data, but admits the technology behind the analysis is so new that it presents a challenge even for private innovation. What does this mean for the social sector, as it shapes its own data initiatives?
What the social sector might offer here is ethical guidance. As a classification system, Big Data is predictive, not intuitive. A system based on statistics alone can’t possibly invest in the desires of the individuals it chooses not to see. Such a system would seem oblivious, if not hostile, to those already on the margins of society. This is a problem in a time of economic uncertainty and encroaching climate change, when ethical corners will likely be cut in order to compensate for lost time and resources.
Going forward, philanthropy should consider a more comprehensive code of data ethics. We must honor our sacred pact with civil society as we enter this new golden age of philanthropy data, ensuring that our initiatives remain socially inclusive as well as sustainable.